Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Paridhi Sethi, 53, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3), New Delhi
November, 20th 2014
              IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI
          Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM
                ITA No. 6031/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03

Paridhi Sethi,                   Vs Income Tax Officer,
53, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar,    Ward-25(3),
New Delhi-110057                    New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                         (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. BUPPS7837H

                    Assessee by : None
                    Revenue by : Sh. M. B. Reddy, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing : 19.11.2014          Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2014

                                    ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:

      This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2012
of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi.

2.        Earlier this case was fixed on 09.06.2014 and was adjourned on the
request of the assessee for today i.e. 19.11.2014, the said date was
informed in the Court itself. However, during the course of hearing, neither
anybody was present on behalf of the assessee nor the adjournment was
sought. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute
the matter.






3.    The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their
rights.     This   principle   is   embodied    in   well      known   dictum,
                                      2                     ITA No. 6031/Del/2012
                                                               Paridhi Sethi

"VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT'.
Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of
the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of
CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as
unadmitted.

4.    Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR
480) wherein it has been held as under:

      "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to
     appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of
     the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the
     court is not bound to answer the reference."

5.    Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of
New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference
unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any
assistance from the assessee.

6.    Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.
Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the
appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively
pursuing the same.






7.    So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra,
we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
                                               3                           ITA No. 6031/Del/2012
                                                                              Paridhi Sethi




8.       In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
        (Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/11/2014).



             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-
  (I. C. Sudhir)                                               (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                           ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 19/11/2014
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                                        Date     Initial
1.     Draft dictated on                            19.11.2014              PS
2.     Draft placed before author                   19.11.2014              PS
3.     Draft proposed & placed before the                                   JM/AM
       second member
4.     Draft discussed/approved by Second                                   JM/AM
       Member.
5.     Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                 PS/PS
6.     Kept for pronouncement on                                            PS
7.     File sent to the Bench Clerk                                         PS
8.     Date on which file goes to the AR
9.     Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10.    Date of dispatch of Order.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting